JackBean wrote:By stopping industry, you will kill all people (without any shooting).

When did I talk about stopping all industry........show me when?????.......show me where?????

Here is what I wrote in my post :

sushil_yadav wrote:Food, clothing and shelter......these are the maximum number of things this planet can provide to humans.

A pure non-industrial society is not possible now because Industrialization has increased world population to 7 billion.......World population increased from 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion in just about 200 years after industrialization.......In the absence of industrialization world population would have been only a small fraction of 7 billion today.

If we want to save the remaining environment we must minimize the things that are destroying environment.

At present we are destroying environment for Food, Clothing, Shelter plus Thousands of Industrial consumer goods and services.

We must eliminate the things that were added last to the list......which means Thousands of consumer goods and services, most of which have existed for only about 100 years out of Hundreds of Thousands of years of Total Human Existence on earth .........these have to be eliminated or minimized.

We are approaching Environmental Apocalypse.......The only way to save the remaining environment is by stopping Industrial Activity for production of consumer goods and services immediately........Industrial Activity must be limited to food, clothing and shelter.......and even in these three fields production and consumption must be kept to the minimum.

And how is stopping some industry going to kill all people?????.......How does stopping of industrial activity for production of consumer goods and services lead to killing of all people?????

If absence of industry could lead to killing of all people then you would not be existing today.......Your ancestors lived and survived in pre-industrial societies......If industry were essential for survival then how did all our ancestors survive in pre-industrial societies?????

Last edited by sushil_yadav on Tue May 15, 2012 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For example here:Environment has been destroyed by Industrial Activity........Trying to save environment without stopping Industrial Activity is like

The difference between shooting and industry is that for industry is the pollution only side-effect, but with shooting the bad consequences are aim of it.Thus, by improving industry we can eliminate the bad side-effects.

JackBean wrote:For example here:Environment has been destroyed by Industrial Activity........Trying to save environment without stopping Industrial Activity is like

Which industrial activity am I referring to here??????

What led you to conclude I am referring to all industrial activity?????

Didn't you read the complete post?????

The post makes it very clear that I am referring to Industrial Activity for production of consumer goods and services........I am not referring to industrial activity for production of food, clothing and shelter.

JackBean wrote:The difference between shooting and industry is that for industry is the pollution only side-effect, but with shooting the bad consequences are aim of it.Thus, by improving industry we can eliminate the bad side-effects.

This doesn't make any sense at all.......I think you are having some problem with english.

JackBean wrote:You're using argumental fallacy and long boring post to mislead people.

We need the industry to keep our current living and by stopping it, you would cause people decay. The industry is able to increase efficiency and lower pollution, even find new resources, so that we won't have to destroy the Earth. But if you stop it and stop the research, nothing of that will be possible and the past damage will not be possible to restore.

Who is misleading people......You or me????

You said industry lowers pollution........Industrial activity has produced billions of tonnes of metal waste, plastic waste, gaseous waste, chemical waste, eWaste and nuclear waste.......You calll this lowering of pollution????

Which pre-industrial society produced this much waste????

How does research save environment??????

Animal species sustained for millions of years and saved environment for millions of years......They did not do any research.

Hunter_Gatherer society destroyed very little environment [ compared to Industrial Society] for about a million years........They did not do any research.

Agrarian Society destroyed very little environment [ compared to Industrial Society] for about 10,000 years......They did not do any research.

It's not me who has problem with English. What I meant is that comparing industry and shooting makes no sense, because industry produces good with some bad side-effects, but shooting has only bad aim.

Do not put into my mouth what I didn't say. I said, that improving industry lowers produced pollution! For that reason is the research important, because it will help us to preserve the environment, while keeping our standard of living.

Much of this post is true.Brain damage is impacting the 'executive function' hampering organization and emotional control. The human brain is not compatible with the 'modern world'.Our prehistoric ancestors lived in grassland, where the slightest change of view could be death. We have the same brain today.Visual motion triggers an acute stress response. This response is a 'survival mechanism' which is given priority over the rest of the body functions.The emotions are tied into this response.Studies tie Television watching to early death. Viewers enter a trace-like state within minutes. The motion goes under awareness to the Limbic system where the Amygdala responds to a perceived threat keying the adrenals to release epinephrine ready for 'fight or flight'.Then 'relaxed' watching TV, the Epinephrine stops, switching to cortisol. The cortisol harms the heart, the liver, and the brain, eventually the hippocampus is shriveled unable to stop the stress response. This leads to Alzheimer's.

We consume and consume. Our brains shut down to conserve energy leaving our bodies controlled by habits and instincts and classical conditioning.

It is not the food driving people to work. It is advertising.Pavlov's dogs salivated at the bell.People consume at the feeling.Coca cola associated with desire. The feeling of desire triggers a thirst for a Coke.

The jobs that you are concerned about provide a paycheck so that you can consume. They do not provide any higher value than that. Staying in the city is suicidal. Of course at birth we have a 100% probability of death, so you are gonna die anyway.

"intensity of emotion increases with a decrease in speed" (of the film.) This does not make physiological sense to me. Strong emotions are immediate, accompanied by an adrenalin rush. Think of horror films. They always work best if the shock is unexpected and happens quickly. The physiology of fight flight reaction is very old and I do not think that this could be affected in any meaningful way by whether a person has a fast or slow lifestyle. (Any real speeding up of reaction time in city dwellers, should be measured by subliminal visual testing of letters or numbers.)The phenomenon associated with reactions to scenes of violence whether to people animals or the environment is one of 'habituation.' the reaction loses intensity according to how many times they have seen something similar. One would for instance expect city dwellers to react more to scenes of violence to animals, than country dwellers, who are more likely to have seen animals in trouble simply because they have more access to animals. When it comes to violence to the environment, this really depends on how much each individual cares, and to measure that we need to look at background and education. What makes someone care about the planet? I wish I knew.

animartco wrote:"intensity of emotion increases with a decrease in speed" (of the film.) This does not make physiological sense to me. Strong emotions are immediate, accompanied by an adrenalin rush. Think of horror films.

In every field there is easy work/activity and difficult work/activity.

In mathematics there is easy mathematics and difficult mathematics. Everyone can add 2+4 within microseconds. A PhD level problem of mathematics would take hours [or more] to solve - and that too only by someone who has spent 20 - 25 years learning mathematics up to PhD level.

Same way in the field of emotions there are easy emotions and difficult emotions. Easy emotions are evoked within nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds - anger, lust, fear, pleasure, entertainment and excitement are some examples. These emotions are associated with fast breathing and heart-rate, fast visual and verbal processing. These emotions don"t require gaps between thinking to evoke, intensify and sustain. These are the emotions that can be found everywhere in today's fast society.

Then there are difficult emotions - which require ability and years of effort to develop - emotions associated with pain, compassion and peaceful states of mind are some examples. These emotions are associated with slow breathing and heart-rate, slow visual and verbal processing. These emotions require freezing of thought - freezing of visuals and words - huge amounts of gaps between thinking - to evoke, intensify and sustain.